Skip to comments.Colorado Student Files Lawsuit Over Commencement Speech That Mentioned Jesus
Posted on 08/31/2007 3:03:49 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
DENVER A student who said she was told she wouldn't get her diploma unless she apologized for a commencement speech in which she mentioned Jesus has filed a lawsuit alleging her free speech rights were violated.
The school district contends its actions were "constitutionally appropriate."
Erica Corder was one of 15 valedictorians at Lewis-Palmer High School in 2006. All were invited to speak for 30 seconds at the graduation ceremony. When it was Corder's turn, she encouraged the audience to get to know Jesus Christ.
Corder had not included those remarks during rehearsals.
The lawsuit said Brewer would not give Corder her diploma until she included a sentence saying, "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Fifteen valedictorians in one graduating class??? That’s so incredible!
Identical or fraternal?
Have you forgotten that they grade on a curve to make it fairer!
ACLU call your office. ACLU??? Hello?? ACLU?????
1st amendment re-written by moonbats:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, unless it is a Christian religion in which case you are not allowed to practice or talk about your religion in public places.
Why doesn’t someone file a lawsuit on that dumb kid?
I’m still looking for the part in the Constitution where it says Marxist “teachers” are responsible to make sure all traces of Christianity are removed from American life. I know. There is probably some phony-balony “judge” somewhere that could show me.
I bet that if the valedictorian would have mentioned Mohammed all would be well.
Yep, but I’ll be they’d bend over backwards to promote an all Arab school in New York... I’m convinced there’d be no religion discussed there!
Since it does not involve adults have sex with children, it is not protected free speech.
To me, that's usually the motive behind the demand for an apology, as if he were personally affronted.
I wonder if it appropriate to say “Jesus! What’s taking so long getting these Muslim foot baths installed?!”
I think she has a good law suit case! How about it? Any lawyers still in town?
Maybe CAIR will help her? For the sake of religious freedom?
OTOH, isn't it ridiculous they had fifteen "valedictorians"??
Thanks for that reminder.
Now, when was it exactly that Congress - the legislative and lawmaking body of our government - passed a law prohibiting the mention of Jesus or Christianity from a valedectory podium?
I can't recall that law being proposed or voted on or enacted. Anyone else?
Hmmmm...... maybe this is one of those "laws" devised by a federal court, which by the way has no lawmaking authority.
So why is anyone calling it a "law"? Sounds more like some judge's personal opinion, and not much more.
Did a search and found a site that says this is the entire speech:
“Throughout these lessons our teachers, parents, and let’s not forget our peers have supported and encouraged us along the way. Thank you all for the past four amazing years. Because of your love and devotion to our success, we have all learned how to endure change and remain strong individuals. We are all capable of standing firm and expressing our own beliefs, which is why I need to tell you about someone who loves you more than you could ever imagine. He died for you on a cross over 2,000 years ago, yet was resurrected and is living today in Heaven. His name is Jesus Christ. If you don’t already know Him personally, I encourage you to find out more about the sacrifice He made for you, so that you now have the opportunity to live in eternity with Him. And we also encourage you, now that we are all ready to encounter the biggest change in our lives thus far, the transition from childhood to adulthood, to leave (our school) with confidence and integrity. Congratulations class of 2006.”
I see nothing wrong with her comments and no reason why she should not have been permitted to make them.
This is a complete abuse of her rights. The Supreme Court (erroneoulsy) decided that school initiated and sponsored prayers were a violation of the Constitution but that student initiated prayers were not.
What dumb kid?
Yes, as long as you use the Lord’s name in vain, it’s okay. For example “God” ins unacceptable unless followed by “damned” and then it is fine.
You find nothing wrong with it because you aren’t a Marxist teacher or principal dedicated to stamping out the one true religion.
Ha ha, my alma mater! Back in the day, there was only one valedictorian and God was mentioned in commencement addresses all the time. Funny thing is this is a very conservative community (very close to Colorado Springs).
Did they refuse to release her final transcript to her future college or just refuse to issue the piece of paper? One denies you a future livelihood, the other a commemoration of past events.
You can't read the Constitution that literally. The prohibitions on government apply to all government branches at the federal and state & local levels.
Wonder if the school district has a dollar they can look at.
‘In GOD We Trust’
For what? Please cite a specific law she broke or tort she committed.
In either case, here first amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion were violated.
When it was Corder's turn, she encouraged the audience to get to know Jesus Christ.
I don't know if this was all the remarks she made about Christ, but do you really find this inappropiate? Name one thing about Jesus, The Christ, which is insulting? It amazes to me we have to have these discussion about Jesus because people are too ignorant to go look in the most published book ever to find out about what he stands for. If she ask people to get to know JFK, George Washington, or Mother Theresa would you have a problem with that? Why would any one have a problem about Jesus, when he is so much more righteous than any of these?
There is absolutely no law, nor any insult that prohibits people in any public setting from discussing or evangelizing about Jesus Christ, if you don't like it, leave.
It just is not possible....
It’s OK to bombard people with the video games and MTV muesin “trivia” of “Reality TV” and all kinds of “fisting” sexual joke crap what not inuendos, “love the gays” etc... but Jesus is illegal...
Of course Jesus has to be illegal, He makes all those educators look too real, hmm... too retarted... it hurts MTV ratings, Union ratings and video game makers and their Unions too, so you know.
Selective offense is quite popular amongst distorted, brainwash, moron perverted lawyers, judges and juries too... unfortunately.
Society down the toilet... it were ok to have 12 kids when we were poor and sending them to coal mines, but now we have modernity, we don’t need that work force, we have abortions, kids sent down the toilet and euthanasia too.
BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE....
Sir, That you would take offense affirms the truth of scripture.
She did not violate any laws. Students are allowed to mention Jesus. What is not allowed is the School compelling speech about Jesus. She did no wrong and she deserves her diploma. Give it to her.
It's the perfect time. And it's not about getting in anyone's face so they will change their religion. Look, people who obviously do not know what Jesus is all about always talk about forcing "religion," and what they so ignorantly fail to realize is when Christian's speak about Jesus they are espousing precepts, good deeds, honest values, and most importantly the Truth Jesus stands for.
It's totally ignorantly arrogant of people to not want to know or hear about a person who actually lived a life that anyone in the right mind would be proud to emulate in society.
I challenge you to name another person in history who would be a better example and taught the good valued precepts of life better than Jesus.
That's why she encouraged people "to get to know Jesus" because know matter what "religion" you are, you can not deny the absolute authority of living a life and setting an example better than Jesus.
This Jew Boy thinks her speech was touching and inspirational and perfectly appropriate.
You don’t have a right not to be offended when you go out in public. The administration of the school didn’t do it. A private citizen said what they had to say. What you seem to want is the government to suppress her speech. You don’t see any slippery slope around that? Everbody didn’t get to speak. She was awarded time based on her academic performance to make her statement but yet you want to constrain it.
The world has gone mad. Why aren't we talking about forming a new country, a new society yet?
theres a time and place for everything?
Well, this isn’t the same as praying on the street corner, saying, “look at me...holier than thou.”
This is witnessing. I’m not a Bible expert but as I recall Christians are called upon to proclaim the Good News. I don’t remember that there was any fine print. You scatter the seed and some of it will fall on good ground. The rest of it is not our responsibility. I believe that is where the Holy Spirit comes in.
The way I see it, if Christ was the Son of God, died, and was risen, then that’s the most important thing that ever happened in the history of the human race. Not many of us act like it, or act like it most of the time.
If Jesus isn’t who he said he was then she’s just a girl talking about her hobby. If he is then what she said was the most important thing said by anybody that day.
My my. Such intolerance.
I prefer to call it Generation Joshua, where you see young people like this girl standing up and declaring they won't be cowed into submission by the intolerant "liberalism" of their "progressive" elders.
Is there some exception for the freedom of religion or freedom of speech written that says that students may not practice the tenets of Christianity at school? Where does it say that a student may not do that? My copy of the Constitution says no such thing. It just says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" and THIS looks a heck of a lot like "prohibiting free exercise thereof".
“There is a difference between rights and doing whats appropriate.”
Very interesting. So you believe that what YOU deem “appropriate” trumps someone else’s constitutional rights?